continue to engage with the leaders of congress on this issue at every level. the issue, as i said yesterday, sitting here around the table or in some shares in the west wing between allowing the sequester to kick with with all the negative effect that will come with that or postponing the sequester in a reasonable way with a balanced approach. >> he's been in the forefront of december crike the dire consequences that would -- december scribe -- describe the dire consequences. >> again, the fact is, as jim pointed out, the president has spent an and nor mouse amount of

time to resolve these stalemates over our budget policy again and again. he will continue to negotiate with congress. but it is nonsensical in our view that is the only approach to take. simply persuasion from the president or anyone else about the right course to take would be enough for republican that it is better to ask corporate jet owners to forgo their special interest loophole atlanta to throe all of these people out of work the fact of the matter is, congressional republicans are going to listen to the american people and that's why it is important to engage the american people and not just speak to members of congress. we have to do both, we've always done both, and well continue to do both. >> do you think --

>> i don't want to make predictions. i would note that congress is out this week which says something, i suppose. but the fact of the matter is, the march 1 deadline is looming and congress has an option, a simple option, which is to take up the proposals put forward by senate democrats and house democrats that would do what congress did collect lively at the end of last year, the first of this year. that is delay the implementation of the sequester by buying it down by spending cuts and revenue increases. so congress can get on with regular order and that goes to the other issue you raised. we need to return to a process that has congress -- the house and the senate working on budget proposals, the president submitting his budget and

compromise emerging from that process. in this case it means deficit reduction through entitlement reforms, spending cuts, and tax reforms that produce more revenues. that is how we have gotten to where we are which is $5.2 trillion in deficit reduction under this president. that is how we'll get to the goal of $4 trillion in total reduction over 10 years if congress does the right thing, avoids this unnecessary cry seance all the negative effects that would come from it. passes down the short term buydown of the sequester and proproceeds with regular business. >> for natural gas and exports but u.s. masters are worried they could be impacted. is this allowing to exports and natural gas to japan?

>> i appreciate the question. i'm sure we'll have a preview for you with the prime minister. i don't want to negotiate with our important allies. i'm sure we'll have more to say about this tomorrow and friday. >> what is the president's plan to prevent the sequestration from happening? you've talked about budget cuts -- what are those cuts he's proposaling? >> you can go to white house.gov and look at the reporting done and the information we provided on the offer that the president made to the speaker of the house in december in great detail, put forward the spending cuts that of the president supported and put forth, as well as the saving from the entitlement reforms. here's to me the fundamental aspect of this. if we all agree in washington,

republicans if i they live in a perfect world earn there were republicans in washington in the country, they would only cut spending and not raise revenues. democrats would only raise revenue and never cut spending, especially not entitlement spend passenger what happen is the test of leadership? democrats going on with spending cuts. what has happened? the president has led and put forward repeatedly proposals that are balanced, including tough spending cuts that concludes savings from retirement reforms. we talked about a technical change from the c.p.i. which is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of democrats. but in the context of a bigger deal that concludes reasonable revenue that asks the wealthiest and large corp. operations to pay their fair share, the

president is willing to go along with it. what did we see from republicans? not a tough choice, all we see is no revenue, no revenue. we would rather see the jobs lost than corporate jet owners give up their tax break. >> why not have the president say here's my plan? >> he has. >> prevent this from happening. i get what you're driving a more revenue in the form of closing loopholes. you just went through the fiscal cliff process. isn't it a bit much to expect that kind of concession again just a couple of months later? >> let's be clear. there's been $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. it has not been pretty but under this president's leadership that has happened. by a margin of 2:1 that has been

achieved. the idea that we're done with revenue suggests that the proposals that the speaker of the house said that he was willing to embrace last year that included up to $800 billion in revenue from tax reform are no longer worthwhile. the loop holes that should be closed, that is no longer good policy. why was it good policy back in december to eliminate tax breaks for the larm carp operations. why was it a good policy then but not now? why it is better to preserve those tax breaks now than to preserve the jobs of average americans around the country who would lose those jobs if the sequester goes into effect. if you ask where the president's plan, it has been there. it is on white house.gov.

the speaker walked away from it. >> that was the budget plan for the long term. how do you prevent sequestration from taking -- >> congress has to act. the president could do this himself he would. congress has to pass the law to avoid sequestration. senate democrats and the house democrats have put a proposal on the table. that's all we're talking a here. so that congress can come together and achieve the big goal here, which is the further work that needs to be done to get that to $4 trillion figure which economists say we need to get to get our fiscal house in order. that is what the president is talking about. i can't emphasize enough how important it is when you talk about the comparisons here. the president has consistently

put forward proposals that included entitlement reforms. what we have not seen from republicans in any detail or any sincere way is a proposal that is similar in its request of the republicans that they compromise and make tough choices. the public wants that and the president certainly wants that. >> given that the handful of days left the best option is the short term. isn't there any value of going over a fiscal cliff or letting it kick and working towards a long-term deficit reduction instead of kicking the can down the road one more time? >> here's what i say ok, it may sound ok in the abstract. but does it sound ok around the kitchen table in the homes of the families that would be

affected by the layoffs and the furloughs. it doesn't sound ok to the children who -- the parents of the children who will have to give up mental health services or to senior who is would lose services or to those who worry about our border being protected who would see a reduction in the border patrol because the sequester goes into effect. the president believes we ought to continue to seek towards the grand bargain, the $4 trillion figure. congress has demonstrated an interest in pursuing regular budget order and pursuingal budgetary process that could lead to that end. but it is unnecessary to throw up to 750,000 out of work to get there. they can pass an extension of the sequester, just like they

did at the end of last year so congress can get the work that it wants to get done, done. >> if not now, at what won't does the president and the congress try of avert these crisis? >> there's legislation that has being submitted that would avert the sequester by house and senate democrats. the president supports that legislation. it represents the balance that the american people overwhelming support. these are the kinds of cuts and revenue increases that have, in the past been acceptable both sides in the name eye avoiding something. that is what congress should do and the president would sign that. and then we can continue of with the process, the president will submit his budget and congress could come up with a budget. if there's a willingness by

republicans to make the same kinds of tough choices from their perspective that the democrats aring with to make. achieve the $4 trillion deficit reduction that has been the goal since this started. >> does this represent a shift in the strategy do we expect him to speaker boehner -- inaudible] >> i don't have any calls or meetings today but i think it represents the regular engagement on the top priorities that the president has and the country has with members of congress. that will continue. as, i think we learned yesterday, the president reached out to some of the republican leaders of the gang of 8 on immigration reform. that is keeping with the regular outreach that is done at the

staff level by the white house. >> they said they vcht heard from him in months on the sequester. >> again, the president has working with him a staff that engages with the congress on these issues. the president is encouraged by the process under way in the senate led by the so-called gang of 8 to achieving a comprehensive immigration reform that can pass the senate and pass the house and land on his desk for a signature. he is encouraged by the progress that has been made so far. the democrats that were involved last week were very productive and he felt the same about senate republicans yesterday. >> these are real and urgent cuts that will take place quickly. when the president was saying in his remark that tens of thousands will have to scramble to find child care for their

kids. that's not going to happen on march 1 is it? how do you back up tens of thousands of parents looking for child care immediately? >> whether that search begins on march 1 or the near future. the impact on people's lives is real. don't take my word for it. the c.b.o., moody's all estimate massive job loss. that is a fact. >> so what happens on march 1, what happens on march 2? we're talking about hundreds of thousands of job losses, we talking the first week? >> so you're scaring the public that this is going to happen and be horrible. >> so the outside organizations are scaring the public. >> how do you say that the hundreds of thousands of jobs are going to be lost? >> when the g.d.p. number came

out and maybe you guys are trying to scare the public. i thought you were asking sensible questions about why the number we got what we got. it was because industries, especially in the defense sector were anticipating the implementation of the sequester which was due at the january 1. congress did a sensible thing which passed an extension. and buying it down with a reasonable package a, that is what they out to do again. it is easy to stand here in washington whether you're a reporter or in congress, that this is all abstract. this is not abstract to the people affected. there will be people affected. the process that leads to furlough notices. those are people who working to

protect our country every day that will be affected by the implementation of the sequester. those are real people with real jobs. >> but they can stop the furlough notices before the election. >> before the election that was november 8? that was not 10 days before the em me menation of the jever. we're doing reasonable planning that, again, depending the day of the week the speaker of the house says it a good thing that he convinced his fellow republicans in the house because he has it in his back pocket as leverage. or it is a bad thing because it will hurt our national defense and cost us jobs. both can't be true unless you're highly cynical. we agree that the sequester implementation would be a bad things for job, middle-class

families and for our national defense. >> since the general wisdom in washington is that it is going to happen. >> how often is it right? >> why shouldn't we suspect that you're willing to take a few weeks of this until it begins to bite and you have to, then get some more money, the c.r. runs out? i mean work it all together to your advantage. >> i think you should pay attention to what we've been doing and saying. in contrast to, unfortunately, republicans including the leadership and the speaker of the house who are suggesting that the implementation of the sequester would not be a bad thing and it will give them political leverage. we've been -- the question i just got was that we're being too alarmist about the sequester. again, we don't want the sequester to happen. the impact on the economy would be terrible for american families. we don't want it.

we think it is bad policy. it was designed to be bad policy. that was the whole point. the sequester was written in a way that would assure that congress would never let it happen. >> by putting it off, it could work to your advantage perhaps? >> i think you're misunderstanding or maybe we're not doing a good enough job trying to convince you. we support efforts in congress to buy down the sequester but they should come back and do it tomorrow or come back next week. buy it down so the sequester does not have an immediate effect and congress can get back to work and we can get that $4 trillion in deficit reduction that analysts have called for. we've been working for that. up to $2.7 trillion in deficit

reduction has been achieved thus far. our deficit is coming down but we need to do more work to make sure that process continues. that's what we want, that's what the president wants. >> i have a question about cyber crime among other things. what can we expect? >> i think if you're talking a the issue of trade secrets? >> right. >> i think there are two things, there were a series of stories in the last 48 hours about hackers -- cyber security issues and i addressed that in the briefing yesterday. this is a very large concern of the president's. he has made this an issue repeatedly. he pressed congress last year to pass legislation and as you know, just the other day issued

an executive order addressing cyber security. the fact of the matter is, an executive order is not a substitute for new cyber legislation. so again, we call on congress to take up a cyber legislation because it is important four national security and our economic security. the other issue, which i think you're talking about which is today, there's a launch of the administration strategy to mitigate u.s. trade secrets. we know that trade secrets can cripple markets and diminish markets around the globe. the strategy we're releasing today coordinates and improves efforts and supports jobs in the united states. these are understandably related issues but separate. >> so you said repeatedly, this

is a choice between corporate jet owners and spending cuts. can you tell us how much money that would save? >> i don't have that figure. i remember when we called on congress to do it was like $4 billion a year. i can get those figures for you. the president has never said -- we have never said that we should close our deficit through revenue increases alone. the president said we should have a ratio of spending cuts to revenues that are higher in spending cuts and revenues. that is what he has pursued but we have to do it in a balanced way. if you don't, you end up with something like the ryan budget, voucherized medicare. >> can we acknowledge that closing the tax loophole for jet owners that takes about $300 million or less that is not

going to solve your sequester problem? >> you can acknowledge it but it puts it that we never suggested it would. >> you said sever times today that want to protect corporate jet owners. >> can you tell me a single tax loophole that republicans have identified they are willing to close to reduce the deficit? i take your silence as no. >> i understand -- >> the speaker of the house -- let's give him credit, he did late last year suggest without giving details that he could come up with $800 billion in revenue from yelt americans and corp. operations -- corporation s. we can do that. it's not going to do the job alone, absolutely not.

that's why he continues to have on the table and offer to the republicans and offer to the speaker of the house, they include spending cuts and savings from entitlement programs that are very tough for democrats to accept. but it is part of a balanced package and the offer still stands. >> why does the vice president suggest that people buy shotguns? >> the point that the vice president was making yesterday is one he made before. that is first, this administration, this president and the vice president firmly support the second amendment rights and that includes the right of homeowners, law-abiding citizens to have a firearm at their home and protect their home. the point he made yesterday, in his view you do not need a military-style assault weapon to protect your home. you would be better off with a shotgun, including -- i think

that is what he said. as i understand it he has a double-barrel -- 12 gage and a 20 gage. >> does the president agree with the quote from the vice president, if you want to protect yourself get a double barreled shotgun? >> i think the president does agree with the vice president that homeowners who are interested in utilizing their second amendment rights to own a firearm to protect their home and their families don't need a military-style assault weapon. >> going out on the balcony and firing shots in the air -- >> again, that is not what the vice president recommended. you do not need a military-style assault weapon that a shotgun will do the trick. >> back to the trade secrets report coming out. how much is that going into china? >> again, i think we need to separate reports yesterday about

hacking and i addressed this yesterday and i think i made clear that in regards to china, that the united states and china are the largest cyber actors. it is vital to sustain a meaningful dialogue. we repeatedly and we'll continue to raise our concerns at the highest level about cyber threat with chinese cyber officials, including in the military. on trade secrets again i would refer you to the roll out later today of the o.m.b.'s officer will be releasing to mitt investigator the theft of u.s. trade secrets. more details will be coming, i don't really have them. >> does the administration favor fines or retaliation for countries that are engaged in

this? >> again, i think that is a broad question that would have to be addressed by the experts on this issue. >> crorgs court cases, g.m. and others have been victims of detective inaudible] -- what does the administration want to do as result of this reporter? >> i would urge you to seek information from those away that are rolling out the strategy. i can tell you the general matter of this administration has been focused on protecting government cyber security as well as assisting the private sector to help protect the private sector when it comes to cyber crime. it is important when it comes to companies that deal with

national infrastructure that is vital in this country. this is a very sheers issue. you've heard john brennan address it in the past and it is very much on the president's mind. it is why the president has urged congress to act appropriately on cyber security legislation and again, why we're calling on congress to act. >> i want to go back to a question i asked you yesterday. we know that c.b.o. has the numbers for those who will lose jobs due to sequestration. what are the white house numbers ? if sequestration happens, how many people will loss their jobs? >> i don't have a specific numbers done by white house economists. i think you can assume that my citation of c.b.o., moody's, and macroeconomics suggest that we

believe they are in the ballpark of -- when we talk about massive job loss. >> when the president said hundreds of thousands yesterday, he was talking about moody's -- >> we agroo with the estimates here -- agree with the estimates here that the country would lose up to 50,000 if the sequester were allowed to be implemented. >> it is kind of striking what the vice president said yesterday about the double barrel shotgun. how long has he been an owner of a shotgun? is he a hunter or is this for protection? >> this is a comment he made on several occasions and i would refer you to the vice president's office. he does own and keeps it in a

safe in his home in delaware, a 12 gage and a 20 gage. i think that reflects that he as vice president and as a senator and this president fully support second amendment rights. appoint i try to make again and again when we talk a the president's prove -- comprehensive legislation. if it all happened tomorrow, not a single law-abiding citizen would lose his or her weapon or his or her firearm. that is because we believe in second amendment rights. we need to take common sense action to try to reduce this surge of gun violence in this country. >> i want to follow-up real quick. he did bring the second lady into the conversation today. he was talking about jill is if there is a problem fire it

twice. do you have any information on her? >> i would refer you to the vice president'ses office. >> two request questions, does the white house have any estimates about white house jobs that would be lost or furloughed? >> take the question and refer you. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not going to speculate. we believe that congress should act next week to avoid the sequester. it is the right thing to do. if you just look what the speaker of the house has said on different occasions about the terrible consequences of the sequester to the national defense, jobs, he makes a point as the president has made and others. congress should take the appropriate action to avoid the

sequester so that congress could then proceed to deal with our larger budget challenges. >> if you could get back to me. >> we have no schedule changes to make or announce. >> if you can get back to me about the white house job numbers. secondly, north korea -- >> i could also encourage you to call o.m.b. >> thank you. north korea released a statement suggesting the official news agency said that it was a computer visualization of their nuclear attacks and it is directed, obviously at the president of the united states. i was wondering if you had seen that and if you have a reaction? >> i read about it. provocative propaganda is far less concerning to us and to our

allies than provocative actions that violents north korea's commitments to the united nations and the international community. it is violation when it comes to their nuclear weapons program. we're working with our allies to isolate and pressure north korea given its continuing defiance of these international obligations. >> on the issue of -- [inaudible] john mccain said today that the borders are not secure and arizona remains the main drug pipeline from drugs coming from mexico. until this issue is resolved there would be no path to citizenship. understanding the numbers there, still how will the white house certify, how will the white house propose to convince those

along the borders that what they are saying is not true? >> i think we made the point clearly backed up by independent data that our borders are more secure since the president took office. we made grade strides in border security in the last several years. we have designated significant resources to that. that effort is resulting in fewer -- we're producing positive results in terms of migration. we have never said that the work is done. that's why when the president talks about comprehensive immigration reform and the president lays out his blue print that he has done more than a year. the number one priority is

continuing to take necessary action to enhance our border security following on the work that has been done thus far. i would point to previous quotes, recent quotes from senator mccain where he acknowledged the improvements in border security that has been made over the last several years. we share his commitment to taking further action as part of comprehensive immigration reif form. there's not -- reform. there's not a lot of disagreement here. we look forward, as the president -- as we said in the aftermath of the president conversations with the republican senators to continue to work with congress as they continue to pursue bipartisan legislation. the president is encouraged by the comments that have been made. we saw comments by senator rubio

and others about the positive impact that has been made. but we encourage the senate to keep working. this is a significant priority, it is a priority that in the past has bipartisan support and once again is enjoying bipartisan support. the legislation the then-senator obama supported back in 2006 was co-authored by senator mccain. it had the support of president george w. bush and that reflects what should be a bipartisan consensus behind this important policy. >> if they are saying, if john mccain is saying half the citizenship won't happen until the borders are secure and there's a disagreement on whether or not they are secure, what is the white house going to do toer is if i fie?

is there a certain number? >> we talked a lot about the interplay between border security as part of a broader and other measures that are part of broader comprehensive immigration reform. we wait to see what the bipartisan produces in this effort. we insist and this reflects views from both republicans a endemocrats that comprehensive immigration reform is a clear path. that means getting in the back of the line and paying taxes and the like. that is the goal shared by republicans and dats. >> you said that republicans -- [inaudible] i looked at rezurlts that americans are com play september about defense cuts and cutting the pentagon.

does that make it harder to sway republicans? >> i would point you to what republicans have said about sequester on national security and on our defense readiness. it is a fact that it affects deployment, it affects -- it would have negative impacts on army readiness, it imposes cuts to air force flying hours. i think that is a concern to all americans who worry about our national defense. but it would also, again, result in 0,000 kids getting kicked off of head start. it would rezurlt to cuts in mental health services to children. it would have cuts to teachers and to mental health care. that is to just name a few. to the jobs of first responders and others who would be affected by this. the reason why the list is so

long because the sequester was written to be broad and, therefore, not to become policy. we call on congress to take reasonable and appropriate action, to pass legislation that would buy down the sequester, postpone the sequester with a package of spending cuts and revenue increase. we're making sure we're not asking people to lose their jobs rather than, you know, ask corporate jet owners to give up they tax breaks or oil and gas companies to give up their taxpayer subsidies achieved through special, you know, lines in the tax code that reflect the influence they have in washington through lobbyists. small business owners don't have, regular folks don't have. that's why this choice is so

easy. it is why we have to have bounds. we have never suggested that revenues alone would do the job. we have always suggested that balance is the right approach, sending cuts, entitlement reforms, and rves. it does it in a way that helps our economy grow and create jobs. >> pentagon cuts would be toxic. are you surprised that republicans don't seem as -- >> i feel like i'm suffering from whiplash. what republicans said about how these cuts would be devastating and unacceptable last year they seemed to recant earlier this year. then the speaker said today that the sequestration would result in job loss.

instead of focusing on solutions they are obsessed about who's idea it was in the first place. it is irrelavent because the policy was never supposed to be implemented. that was the purpose that democrats and republicans had in mind when they wrote the legislation. that was a so then b if they never liked it as a republican congressman said why did they vote for it? they voted for it overwhelming, every republican leader voted for it, including speaker boehner. on the day it passed boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted and he was pleased. this is a ridiculous solution. >> just to clarify, is the president calling on the senate

next week to vote on the attorney to the sequester? -- alternative to the sequester? >> we want congress to act before march 1 to avert the sequester. legislation has been put forward that would do that in a balanced way, a way that the president supports. he would welcome congressional passage of that legislation to achieve the goal that he set out, which is to avoid the sequester. so then congress can take action to further reduce our deficit that helps our economy grow and helps to expand the middle class and creates opportunity for americans to aspire to the middle class. that is the simple formula. we should not have these kind of crisis where some folks seem to see it as leverage and political advantage to drive our economy

off a cliff, whichever cliff you choose, in this case the sequester. we should be, you know, working towards common sense solution and common sense means balance. it means tough choices by democrats and tough choices by republicans, nobody gets everything they want but we get something done for the american people. >> between march 1 and march 27, his budget will come out. my question is, how does the president want that new budget, including his revenue ideas, his list of investments, how does he want that to shape the discussion that would come after the sequester or purr severe the c.r. debate? how does it help or hurt the debate? >> i would say the president would be pleased if congress passed it as written.

i don't think that has ever happened. a president's budget is detailed outline for congress of what the president's priorities are. we would certainly hope that as as been the case in the past, that the balance represented in his approach to deficit reduction. the key investments he insists we make in infrastructure, education, research and development are adopted by congress, because that's the way we can assure that people are working now and the middle class is growing now but so the american economy is strong in the future. we put these policies in a way that allows us to continue to grow. last one. >> the president going to israel is there a concern about the

impact of sequester -- [inaudible] >> i don't have the specificity to address the question about those kinds of impacts. i think the pentagon would be the place to go for that. i can say that the president believes and agrees with the speaker of the house that the sequester should not become fact. it was never meant to become immplementmented policy because in part, the cuts to our defense are too severe and it would affect our national security. but the specifics would have to be addressed at the pentagon. thanks, everybody. ok, i'll take you question. >> there are tens of thousands of people who are middle-class workers, who work in corporate aviation.

my question is, including several tens of thousands in kansas, washington, oklahoma, they are very worried about the president's comments about eliminating the tax exemption. in their world, every time it has been eliminated there have been layoffs and there has been thousands in kansas. since the president stay started mentioning this, these are middle-class workers. what would you say to them? >> i would say that makinging budgets and choices about deficit reduction always involves difficult choices. if there is a choice between laying teachers off or affecting our national security or changing the tax reform that eliminates the special interest tax breaks or subsidies that is a better option than

voucherizing medicare or cutting education investment or throwing people -- kids off head start. i think -- >> last june -- >> i understand. >> i lost my job because of this. >> again, the question here is what choices do we make and do we choose to protect narrow special interest loopholes, by the way, the speaker of the house said late last year, there were so many of them he could come up with $800 billion in revenue that he would direct to deficit reduction by closing loopholes like that. i don't doubt there are benefits enjoyed by companies and others that flow from these loopholes and special provisions in the tax code. but the broader interest here is making choices that are fair to everyone in a way we reduce our

deficit. i think i answered the question. we have to make choices here and i think overwhelming a decision to close a special interest tax break as opposed to throwing 70,000 kids off of head start is a clear choice. none of these are cost-free but it is a clear choice. thank you. >> earlier today, secretary of state john kerry delivered his first major speech since taking his position earlier this mop he talked about the obama's administration foreign policies and the importance of foreign aid. here's a look. >> i had the privilege of

testifying as a downveteran returning from vietnam. he knew that the value of -- he said having people who understand your thought, he said, is much greater security than another submarine. let me be very clear. foreign assistance is not a giveaway, it is not charity, it is an investment in a strong america and in a free world. foreign assistance lifts other people up and reinforces their willingness to link amples with us in common endeavors. when we help others crack down on corruption that makes it easier for our own compliances and it makes it easier for our businesses to do business as well. we build partnerships that means we don't have to fight those battles alone.

this includes working with our partners around and making sure that iran would never obtain a weapon that would endanger our allies and others. it means that we're helping people build a better, more democratic future and making sure we don't pay later in american blood. the stories that we need to tell of standing up for american jobs and businesses and standing up for american values intersect powerfully in the opportunity that we have now in this moment of urgency to lead on the climate concerns that we share if our global neighbors. we as a nation, must have the foresight and the courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren. that is an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly

superstorms, devastating droughts and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate. president obama is committed to moving forward on that and so am i eni hope you are ready to join us in that effort. [applause] can we all say thank you to our signer? [applause] so think about all of these things that i listed. think about the world as you see it today. let's face it, we're all in this one together. no nation can stand alone. we share nothing so completely as our planet.

when we work with others, large and small to develop and deploy the clean technologies that will powary new world. and they are there, waiting for us, $6 trillion market. huge amount of jobs. when we do that we know we're helping to create new markets and new opportunities for america's second to none innovators and entrepreneurs so we can succeed in the next great revolution in our marketplace. we need to commit ourselves to do the smart thing and the right thing and truly take on this challenge. if we don't rise to meet it, then rising temperatures and rising sea levels will surely lead to rising costs down the road. ask any insurance company in america. if we waste this opportunity, it may be the only thing our generation -- generations are remembered for. we need to find the courage to

leave a far different legacy. we cannot talk about the unprecedented changes happening on our planet without talking about the unprecedented changes in its pop you lage. -- population. in countries across north africa and the middle east the majority of people are younger than 30-year-olds. 60% under 30, about half, total under 20. they seek the same opportunities and the same things that you do. opportunity. we have an interest in helping these young people to develop the skills they need to defeat the mass unemployment that is overwhelming their societies so they can, in fact, contributing to their communities and rebuild their broken economies rather than engaging in some terrorist

or some other extremist active. for the first time in history, young people act add a global cohort. they are more open minded, more proficient with the technology that keeps them connected that no generation in history has ever been before. we need to help all of them and us to use this remarkable network in a positive way. now some may say not now. not while we have our budget. it's too expensive. believe me my friends, these challenges will not get easier with time. there is no pause button on the future. we cannot choose when we would like to stop and restart our global responsibility or simply wait until the calendar says it is more screents. -- convenient. it is not easy but responding

the is the american thing to do. it is worth it. our investment in these programs help american companies compete abroad, which creates jobs here at home. it supports american citizens abroad, help them when they need it the most, which foster stable societies and save lives by fighting disease and hunger, which defend the universal rights of all people and advances freedom around the world, which brings people together and nations together and forge partnerships to forge problems that transcend the separation of oceans and borders on land. and it protects our planet to our chirne and their children. our investment in all those things cost us, as i just mentioned, about one penny of

every dollar we investment. america, you will not find a better deal anymore. i'm particularly aware that in many ways that the greatest challenge to america's policy today is in the hands of not diplomats but policymakers in congress. it is often said we cannot be strong at home if we're not strong in the world. but in these days of a looming budget sequester that everyone actually wants to avoid -- or most. we can't be strong in the world unless we're strong at home. my credibility as a diplomat, working to help other countries is strongest when america puts its own fiscal house in order and that has to be now. [applause] >> a portion of today's speech

at the university of virginia in charlesville. if you missed any of secretary kerry's remark we will show it to you tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. sunday marks the day of his first trip abroad he will visit, germany, france, turkey, egypt, and the united kingdom. now in discussion on some of the major issues in washington from sequestration to gun control policies. from "washington journal" it is 45 minutes. host: megan hughes works for bloomberg news. we are talking about the sequester. you can see this highlighted -- nine days until the automatic

spending cuts go into affect. megan hughes, is the debate how to stop the sequester, or who is at fault? guest: the debate is about how to stop the sequester, but we hear a constant blame game. nobody wants the sequester to happen. my e-mail inbox is flooded with laundry list of what is going to be cut. at the white house 70,000 children would lose headstart, there would be fewer food inspectors, the president appeared with first responders yesterday, really trying to highlight and hit home this week. i get those e-mails from republicans as well. neither side wants to see this happen, the revenue continues to be the big sticking point had -- sticking point. host: john boehner in an op-ed

today says "obama invented the sequester in the summer of 2011 to avoid facing up to america spending problem." how has the finger-pointing been going? guest: the white house response to republicans saying this came from the white house is congress signed off on this, both parties signed off on this, and polls have shown that republicans might take some of the blame when you are talking about this balanced approach that the president keeps talking about. host: let's listen to president obama speaking yesterday in front of first responders and he got into the origins of the sequester. [video clip] >> congress passed a law saying

that if parties could not agree on the $4 trillion goal, arbitrary budget cuts would start to take effect this year, and the design was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that democrats and republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of good, sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. so, this was all designed to say we cannot do these bad cuts, let's do something smarter. that was the whole point of this so-called sequestration. host: president obama speaking yesterday. bloomberg government has a sequestration powerbroker monitor. what have you learned from this? guest: they have been tracking what brokers say, whether they sound optimistic or pessimistic

about a deal. they look at the administration, congressional democrats and republicans and the business community, and you will see that the business -- the administration has sounded the most optimistic, like a deal could happen. that would be next in line at this point. congressional democrats really in the last week, in terms of how likely that think we are going to get to a deal. we have been hearing for some time from congressional republicans to have been pessimistic for some time. it comes on the eve of congressional democrats actually having a vote. senate democrats have a proposal that they are going to be voting on next week that would replace the sequester. clearly some evidence that they don't necessarily think the deal

they have come of with is going to go through. the sticking point, 50% of that is cuts and the other 50% would be raises and tax increases. what charlesear has to say on the democrat line. caller: i really don't think this thing is going to happen. i think the democrats are going to stand strong. they will get down to maybe the last couple of days and then they will come up with something just the ticket down the road a little bit.

the balanced approach will be to have limited cuts in the same amount of revenue, and republicans do not want to agree on that. this is all to go against the president. host: that's getting response from megan hughes. guest: charles, that is interesting. one potential scenario that i have heard could unfold -- march 1, again, it is nine days away -- seeing a deal in the final hours is not unheard of. we have seen that on capitol hill in the past. another thing that is talked about is this is not the same as the fiscal cliff for the debt ceiling where the next day everybody's taxes are going to go up. these budget cuts would happen over time, and a lot of the furloughs would not happen for a month or two months. the next, big budget deadline is march 27, when the continuing resolution will expire, and meeting the will shut down if there is not a budget deal reached by march 27.

there is talk of a sequestration deal being rolled into that so that march 27 might be the next deadline to look at. host: poco -- "the new york times" has this story -- "dire forecast on effective budget cuts." here is bloomberg businessweek looking at a reboot for the simpson-bowles plan. are we hearing anything new from them and what has the reaction been? guest: what is interesting is we have not had a ton of reaction from both sides. here is generally what their plan looks like -- 2.4 trillion dollars over the course of 10 years. that is scaled back. their other big deficit commission was around $4 trillion.

one quarter of that would come from medicare and medicaid savings. another quarter would come from changes to the tax code, about $600 billion worth. we have not heard anything from speaker boehner directly on this, but judging from his editorial in "the wall street journal" today, the $600 billion in revenue takes the plan off of the table, at least in the near-term. the rest of it would be cut. the white house spokesperson jay carney commented on the plan yesterday, simply saying it is an affirmation of the balanced approach. it does go further than the president suggested, but the fact that it has revenue in it, they see as affirmation. host: megan hughes is a correspondent for bloomberg television and a reporter for bloomberg government. we are also joined from students on our c-span bus which

is touring to promote our new series "first ladies -- influence and image." the bus is at james madison university in the shenandoah valley, off interstate 81, about two hours southwest of washington, dc. there are about 2000 graduate and undergraduate students. we would like to give a special thanks to chris lake. first up is liz, a student at jm you -- james madison. >> how do you respond to the comment that guns do not kill people, people kill people? guest: the white house is

continuing to press on this topic. just this week, vice president biden, i am told, will be in the neck ticket -- connecticut, and the president took a lot of time on this in the state of the union address. you asked about the gun show loophole. from what the white house has said, there is some agreement on the idea of universal background checks, which would include closing the gun show loophole. one thing i have to point out here is we have not heard a lot from the house on this. we are still in very early stages. what we are watching on capitol

hill is the senate judiciary committee. the white house believes that it has done its part with vice president biden releasing his task force recommendations. senator leahy, the chairman of the committee, as that report, -- as the report, and is considering the things that are reasonably feasible like trafficking and background checks, and then there would be high-capacity magazines that would have to come with a second vote. we are very much watching the senate judiciary committee. host: we are talking politics and government with megan hughes a bloomberg news. new york. cal. caller: good morning. there was a great documentary called "cliffhanger" which eliminated a lot of points about this budget issue and

sequestration. i recommend a lot of people watch that. it is also very frightening to me how everybody on all levels seems settled into their positions as to how this will play out, and how that leads to the inevitability of the sequestration. congress seems to be, on some level, waiting for obama just to leave office. there is obama, who feels he does not want to deal with congress, sohe only way to maintain a good face is to go on this road trip and sell his argument to the american people on press conferences and television appearances. then there are you folks, the media, which seemed so amused by the endless circles and that and the president seemed to be

running in, and judging by the earlier comments, whether you are on the left or the right, you are perfectly satisfied with your position because you are already entrenched in blaming the other side. is this what the next four years is going to be like in terms of legislation of any kind? guest: that is a tremendous question and i can hear the force -- the frustration in your voice. i have not seen that documentary, but i would be interested in checking that out. your first question coming out of the gates is how does this end, how does this play out, and your representation of the standoff that we are seeing is accurate. in the white house news conference yesterday spokesman jay carney said the president's door is open, but the question

was raised, his door is open, but how come he will not knock on house speaker john boehner's door? we are not even seen talks at this point. in terms of how this ends, i think we have real issues when it comes to do -- to the deficit and the debt that both parties need to address. on tax reform, the president mentioned corporate tax reform in the state of the union address, and that is something republican house member dave camp has been working a lot on. there are some areas of agreement. it is not just this march 1 deadline in the headlines. we have the continuing resolution march 27. we have both the house and the senate saying they will come out with a budget this year and we are still waiting for the

president's budget. there is the potential for some agreement on some of those issues. host: james madison university and our next student, meg, a former c-span in -- in turn. -- in turn. what is your question for megan hughes? >> did the super pacs impact the 2012 election, and do you see corporations playing a bigger role if you -- future elections? guest: the super pacs got a lot of headlines but i have not seen anything that has given me a sense of how that has played out. the cause it was the first time we saw such a presence, i think we need a few more elections with this new player, the super

pac, that book has yet to be written. you bring this up at a timely moment with the supreme court saying they will review a very important campaign contribution issue. host: kelly in montana. republican line. caller: i have more of a comment than a question. the thing that i hear a lot of people talking about is how our president is willing to compromise, and i do not see any compromise in this guy. i have been a republican since i can remember, and one thing that stuck out to me about bill clinton was his willingness to compromise. i did not much like the guy, but he was a good compromise and. he knew -- compromiser. he knew how to reach across the aisle and the country benefited for it. now you have a guy that has no willingness to compromise.

he is so far to the left and nobody will get past him. host: let's get a response from megan hughes. guest: kelly, your appreciation for what president clinton did, moving to the middle and brokering deals, it is certainly a valid point. in terms of whether or not president obama is a compromiser, one good group to ask would be some of the democrats because i think they would contend that when it comes to entitlement reforms and things he has put on the table that those would qualify as compromises, being open to potential means testing or peeling back medicare benefits for higher income earners. the idea of change to cpi, looking at that with social security reform -- there are

definitely some things that have riled up fellow democrats. host: let's go back to the c- span bus and hear from the student eiko. -- michael. >> good morning. with sequestration coming up on march 1, it seems likely that public opinion will fall on one side of the aisle with -- [no audio] host: it looks like we froze up the signal. guest: i think i saw where he was coming with that, asking which side of the aisle public opinion would fall on, and i think both parties think they have the argument of the day in the argument of history on their side. we hear from president obama

over and over again that americans are really looking for a balanced approach, that they want to see higher income earners pay their share as part of this deal and that revenue needs to be heart of this deal as well as cuts. -- be part of this deal as well as cuts. republicans see themselves having already made a deal and revenue at the beginning of the year and now it is time for the president to make those cuts. host: the first student at james madison asked about the gun issue. you had some hands-on experience at a gun range care what did you report and learn on? guest: it was interesting for me, not being a gun owner, and the president talked about regionalism and how this resonates depending on whether you are from an urban area or a rural area. i went to virginia and i went to a gun store and i was able to shoot and 80 r-15, one the

guns that would be banned. it was fascinating for me to be able to feel the power of this weapon, and also see quite gun- lovers -- why gun lovers are really behind this weapons and high-capacity magazines as well. for me, as a reporter, you want to see both sides, and being able to see what gun owners were defending was really fascinating for me. host: c-span will be at the blue ridge arsenal tomorrow morning in chantilly, virginia, and our guests include larry pratt, president of gun owners of america, and "washington times" columnist emily miller.

live interviews will include talking with the shop owner on site as well as demonstrations, all on "washington journal those quote tomorrow morning started -- washington journal" starting tomorrow morning at 8:00 p.m. -- 8:00 a.m.. host: next caller. caller: it is impressive to see to women handling things this morning. now that i have made a friend for life, i want to say that i am a moderate democrat, and everybody is making such a big deal, and the president is making a big deal over such minor cuts to the deficit. we have a deficit of trillions of dollars, and we are cutting 85 billion dollars. we are talking about cutting 3/10 of one percent, in the

world is going to come to an end. this is crazy. we have to cut way more than this. we are only talking about less than one thirds of one percent. i think everyone in the beltway needs to get used to cutting 10 times that, only three percent, or maybe 20 times that. guest: tom, what you are talking about is in terms of the sequester for this year, the $85 billion, correct? host: we lost him, sorry. guest: i will operate under the assumption that he was looking at that $85 billion number. in terms of the metrics that economists are talking about, tom, the target that we have

heard is to reduce the debt-to- gdp ratio to less than 70% by the next decade. that is the metric of what we need to do to stabilize the debt. you raised a valid point that we need to go much further than that. that is the agreed-upon metric. the simpson-bowles proposal, two point $4 trillion over the next 10 years, would, according to simpson-bowles, get us there and the president has talked about $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, and this is on top of $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction we have seen from the budget control act and the fiscal cliff deal. host: andrew in middletown, new jersey.

caller: good morning, c-span. first of all, i find it interesting that boehner put an op-ed page in "the wall street journal" blaming obama and the democrats and everybody else. i would like to take boehner down memory lane, where george bush -- does everybody remember the illegal war he started indirect and bush was there for eight years -- in iraq and bush was there for eight years? where does that money come from and we are still paying for it. now, if they have a revenue problem, let's talk about the gas tax credit given to the oil and gas industry that has had a christmas party. who is going to pay for this? the average american who is losing their job, who has no

health care. veterans will pay for this because cuts will be made to the va. they have already said cuts would be on the military bases. now, this blame game is going to be used as an election tool in the next election and the winners will be the congress in washington and the american people will be the losers. thank you very much. host: all right. middletown, new jersey. any reflections on what he had to say? guest: in referring to speaker boehner's editorial, it is to point out that president obama is urging republicans to come to the table on his side and i believe he will do some interviews with different local television markets around the

country, stressing what the sequester me just to balance that out. it is not a one-sided blame game, to be sure. you raised oil and gas tax credits. now, certainly, republicans have not put that specifically on the table, that they have said they are open to closing loopholes. when we talk about revenue, it it is not necessary to blanket the republican party. the syntax -- they said taxes as revenue raisers are not on the table, but in terms of closing loopholes is something they said they would be in favor of, but what they want to do is lower rates. it is a nuance, but it is an important one. host: megan hughes, a reporter for bloomberg television and also for bloomberg government. she reported from the 2012 campaign trail and she has

covered issues and topics at the affordable care act, state labor disputes and the battle over immigration issues. the next two to james madison university is troy. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for having me here at -- having me. unfortunately, the policies have not been that substantive. this is the republican party trying to change more to substance into its effort, or is this the republican party trying to change the way it approaches these people? guest: what are you referring to?

>> we see the same party members jumping on board now whenever off in 2007. i wonder if that is a move by the republican party to try to change their image. guest: that is a great question. i'm glad you brought up immigration reform. we are seeing a lot of the same players that we saw in 2007 now involved in brokering the deal as far as the gang of eight. one of the things i think is really important to point out, we have talked a lot about this proposal for the gang of eight and that is where everyone is looking right now, the senate. there was a lot of talk about a white house proposal being leaked, but the president has said repeatedly that he would prefer for something to have in congress and he does have a

proposal ready if congress fails to act. back to the frame work involved, it is for border security and this is a framework, not a bill. once you start getting into those details, that is where the rubber meets the road and were you start seeing points of disagreement. but i think you're absolutely right in terms of there being a political impetus right now. it gets thrown a rock quite a bit that latinos voted 70% for president obama. the republican party is certainly looking to open up the demographic for the republican party in elections down the road. there's a political motivation for getting something done. host: if you'd like to join the conversation, here are the numbers.

let's go to georgia. caller: the gentleman from new jersey who talked about the tax break for the oil company, the government makes six times in tax revenue from the oil company than the oil company makes in revenue on gas. he needs to check his facts before he makes the comment. on the superstation, it was the president's idea. if we go back to the speech in november, 2011, he wants the republican party -- if we change these cuts, he will veto it. go back to that speech. is there. the president warned the

republican party, if you change the cuts on sequestration, he will veto it. these cuts need to happen and they will happen. yesterday he made a 180 degree turn and blamed them. all the president has ever done is blame george bush, the republicans for its dealers. host: will get to respond in a moment. but first, here's a "washington post" story. guest: you bring up a couple of

interesting points. i want to separate them out because i think there are a couple of different things that you are referencing. first, in terms of where sequestration came from and where it originated, there has been a lot of talk about that coming from the white house. there is often cited a passage that came out of bob woodward's book that ought lot of republicans on the hill have used as there twitter handle.

you might want to look that up. but secondly, talking about the vikto, where you're referring there is that the house has passed a couple of bills that would replace their sequestered, but what sets of cuts. i do not know that the president has ever been in favor of these cuts. we have been said all along by the framers that these are draconian cuts and were never supposed to take place. in at least one of those packages, i know the house was looking at cutting back a number of the affordable care act provisions and how the funding of the exchanges would take place. that certainly was not going to be palatable to a lot of democrats.

host: our next student is julia kramer. >> do you think that the affordable care act is here to stay? the you suspect that they will alter its or that it has a chance of success? guest: when the supreme court decision came down, not only was the president reelected, but the supreme court upheld the law. for the foreseeable future, it is here. but in terms of how it is funded and provisions that republicans may try to pass to gut the law, and what we're seeing in terms of compliance from republican governors, those are the questions we should be watching. but this is an important year in terms of the affordable care

act and what is coming down the pike. some changes, like allowing people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance, those seem to be well received. but coming up on october 1 is when the moment for the exchange program, or what dhhs is now calling the marketplace will be up and running january 1. there's a tremendous change going into place. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. host: mike is the next caller, from michigan. caller: i am a first-time caller. i couple of comments, one, with all of the sequestered talk, in theory, if the government cuts any money, people will lose jobs, regardless of whether it is medicare, doctors, nurses, that is $500 billion that is not out there.

people will lose jobs, for good or for bad. that is my comment. i do not know if you agree with that or not. the government is our main stimulus. host: how connected or removed from this do you feel out in michigan? are people talking about it? caller: we do have to cut, i think, but there are a lot of jobs to cut that might be worthless. the sequestered just cut everything. but there are some things that maybe should be cut, and a lot that should not. but people will lose jobs regardless. i the more you cut, the more jobs get lost, four or four bad. guest: i think you are right absolutely right. i have a couple of numbers for you. as a nonpartisan tracker of all of these things come out there

was a projection of 750,000 jobs lost because of the sequestered. and there are many questions about how this will slow product growth. i know goldman sachs just had a report out also lowering growth estimates, which has a domino it back on jobs as well. and i think you'll be hearing more about this in your local michigan media as the sequestered takes effect, particularly when it comes to defense. he mentioned contracts. bloomberg did a study finding that one-third of the sequestered cuts are going to be impacting contracts. 70 cents of every dollar when it comes to procurement comes from defense.

and we know that half of the sequester will be cuts to defense. and we have defense contracts in all 50 states. you will certainly be seen that in michigan. host: nathaniel is joining us from the c-span bus. the lead. >> thank you for having me. i was just wondering, how do you think we could instill some transparency and make professional lobbying not such a bad thing? do you think that public opinion is too far gone at this point? guest: i'm curious about where this question originated. do you see transparency with any lobbyists that you are concerned about? >> through my study there been some that they referred to as a revolving door leading congress and going and lobbying and taking huge pay increases. i see the issue with that.

however, myself, i believe we need lobbyists. is a right of the people. that is where i stand on the issue. guest: that is a very good question. yes, you will not seek the death of lobbying any time soon because it has been proven effective. and one counter to traditional lobbying is what we have seen with the growth of the social media campaigns and what they have been able to do with grassroots organizing, but it is counter traditional lobbying. and they have rules on the books on when you can leave congress and become a registered lobbyist. i'm not hearing a lot of change on that right now. host: a caller from lafayette, good morning. caller: 3 comments. the one for the caller from

georgia indicates that barack obama's presidency will be a failure. tell them to take a long, hard look at george bush and allies that he told the american people. next, at one time i'd you did your program and there was a jenn book -- a gentleman from another country, i think brazil, who studied in america. host: was this "washington journal" or bloomberg tv? caller: i'm talking about "washington journal." he got a ph.d. in anthropology, which is a study of cultures. and he indicated that he got his ph.d. -- i think it was from harvard. and he went back to his country and i remember him calling on

one of your programs indicating that with all of the brains that we have in america in reference to scientists, doctors and all of the intelligent people, he never could understand how america could not get past racism, bigotry, and hatred. now, and in reference to the sequester -- host: what is your take away in reference to what you heard the gentleman say? caller: you can look at racism or hatred or bigotry, and look at when barack obama ran and you have people standing in line for seven or eight hours. you should not have people standing in line for several hours to vote. that should not happen in america.

host: we will come back to your question for megan hughes. the first, i want to go to this article. we have a couple of things from our caller. one was about the legacy of george w. bush. the other was about our past as we are working to get past the sequester. guest: right, and talking about the debt and the long-term legacy. in terms of voting rights, believe the president also had a commission looking at voting fairness.

i believe that was a recently announced initiative. the other thing that i did not hear your address but where i thought you were going with the question that i have heard on bluebird with a number of co's that we have talked to is the problem with immigrants coming over and getting it ph.d's and then leaving. there is a lot of talent getting educated and then leaving the country it sounds like you are referencing that it happened for other reasons, but one of the reasons that we hear in this country is a limited visa program. that is what we hear talk about a lot in the program. we have talked to people from silicon valley, from start-ups that have tried to hire here in the u.s., but could not find the talent. they found the talent in belarus and cannot bring the

workers here because they cannot get the visas. they have workers that are working in belarus that they would like to bring here, but they cannot. host: we have one more student ready to talk to megan hughes. caroline joins us now. >> what is the impact you expect from gun legislation, given the fact that there are a large number of assault style weapons grandfather being. guest: i leave your speaking as a bit about the assault weapons ban, correct? >> correct. guest: the 1994 assault weapons ban, there were many questions about its effectiveness. senator dianne feinstein work on this in 1994.

she is the main push, the maine senator pushing this today. -- the main senator pushing this today. the real question is whether it stands a chance. you have heard the president speaking about assault weapons bans specifically. he wants to see a vote. host: megan hughes works for bloomberg tv. her experience includes time here in washington as well. thanks for your time. and thanks to all of the students who joined us from james madison university. we would like to give a special

thanks to comcast for today's visit, and for dr. chris blake for preparing students for the program. >> tomorrow will take you live to virginia gun shop in shooting range as we examine the issue of gun ownership in america. we will begin with alan berlow on the role of the bureau of of tobacco farms and explosives, and background checks. then more about gun control issues with larry craft, executive director of gun owners of america. after that, emily miller on her recent series, "emily gets her gun." "washington journal, live thursday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. looking at our prime-time schedules on the c-span networks, starting at 8:00 p.m.

eastern here on c-span, secretary of state john kerry delivers his first major speech since taking his position earlier this month. on c-span2, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor, an american history tv looks at the crossroads of popular and scholarly presidential history. all the programs beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span networks. the consumer financial protection bureau earlier today hosted a consumer advisory board meeting here in washington. the newly formed board is composed of industry representatives and local business leaders enacted to perform the cfpb on emerging trends in the consumer finance industry. this is an hour and 20 minute event. >> more effectively by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules and

empower consumers to take more control over their economic lives. i am the associate director for external affairs. as many of you know, the dodd- frank consumer protection pact provides for the establishment of a consumer advisory board in order to advise the bureau in the exercise of its functions and to provide information on the emerging practices in the consumer financial products or services industry, including regional trends, concerns, and other relevant information. today's meeting is being live streamed at consumerfinance.gov. let me spend a few moments telling you what you can expect at today's public meeting. first, you'll hear remarks from

the director, richard cordray. after which the consumer advisory board chair will facilitate the discussion among cab members about consumer finance trends and things they are seeing in their community. following the cab discussion, there'll be an opportunity to hear from audience participants. the audience bursts it -- participation portion gives you an opportunity to share your observations in response to today's cab discussion. as a reminder, the views of the cab are their views and are greatly appreciated. they do not represent the views of the cfpb. let me begin with an introduction of the staff members participating in this public meeting. jose quinones, the vice chair is

billbynum from jackson, mississippi. gary of coastaacosta is a foundr of the hispanic real estate professionals. don baylor is a senior policy analyst at the center for public policy priorities in austin, texas. mike brown is the executive developer of housing in oakland california. steve alston is the head of business development in mountain view, california. laura cortez is vice president for alternative financial solutions in omaha, nebraska.

elizabeth is the director for consumer and state affairs at the aarp public policy institute in virginia. the associate professor of law at the university of minnesota in minneapolis. patricia is the president and executive director for pennsylvania. patricia is the director of never housing services in phoenix, arizona. adam is a visiting professor of law at harvard law school. james mccarty is the president and ceo of the miami fair housing center in dayton, ohio. jennifer is deputy director in washington, d.c. william jefferson from radcliff, ky. michelle is the global consumer

cheap marketing and internet officer of citigroup in new york, new york. at the end of this month, michelle will leave citigroup. dory rand is the president of woodstock institute in chicago, illinois. ellen is the chairman of the board of directors at the center for financial innovation and washington, d.c. the president of u.s. consumer services at american express in new york. robert stoll from portland oregon. don knapp is vice chair of bank of hawaii in honolulu, hawaii.

jane is ceo and founder of the firm in chicago, illinois. an associate professor at dartmouth college in hanover, new hampshire. also here is the cfpb staff director. i am pleased to introduce richard cordray, who was appointed by the president just over a year ago to serve as the first director of cfpb. before that he served on the front lines of consumer protection in ohio as the attorney general. in his role, he recovered more than $2 billion for ohio retirees, investors, and business owners and took major steps to protect consumers from financial predators. [applause]

>> thank you. good morning to everyone, and thank you for coming to our first meeting of the year with our consumer advisory board. we very much appreciate the insights and expertise of the board, and we have found that they are already critical to our efforts to improve how consumer finance markets works for the american people. since we first became an independent agency, the consumer bureau has been focused on the financial issues, to the everyday lives of most americans. we were born out of the recent financial crisis, and our work is still in its early stages. but as the american economy recovers, we want consumers to be able to look ahead with hope and resilience. we want them to know that they now have an agency standing on their side and looking out for their interest, to help restore their confidence in the consumer

financial marketplace. when america was confronted wis the worst financial crisis since the great depression, many families help it develop helpless with the minister term savings. they were shaken in their deeply held belief that they could work hard, behave responsibly, and get ahead in life. the pathway to opportunity seemed elusive. in the aftermath of the crisis, this country had to make a new beginning. we are part of the fresh start. we are addressing the problems in the consumer finance marketplace one by one. the mortgage market is worth trillions of dollars. we have adopted sweeping new rules to ensure that the excess is an irresponsible practices that helped precipitate a nation's financial calamity cannot be repeated. in the credit-card market, we are overseeing extensive changes congress made in the card act.

will work closely with our fellow regulators to put $425 million back in their pocket so far. in the student loan department, we've teamed up with the department of education to help students understand how best to manage increasing levels of student loan debt. we are also developing and delivering powerful new tools for all consumers. for consumers who felt this empowered by the convoluted rhetoric around any financial products, we harness the power technology to deliver clear information through our ask cfpb tool. it answers thousands of common consumer questions. perhaps the most direct example of addressing problems is our consumer response board. we have addressed complaints from 130,000 consumers about the specific problems they explained -- they encountered.

through our consumer response operation we have helped return millions of dollars to consumers and solve problems that have been frustrating them for months or even years. we have begun to fulfill our pledge of transparency around the work we are doing. the kind of transparency that will unleash human creativity to address issues in new and unexpected ways. we are presenting information to the public about our consumer complaint database which sheds new light on our customer service is falling short and how can be improved. we are building a national mortgage database that will allow researchers to track the long-term performance of the critical market place for consumer credit in ways not per se but did not possible before. we are experiencing an inning -- is experimenting with hiding our accessibility in a rulemaking policy -- heightening our accessibility in the rulemaking process. our goal is to reduce the

compliance burden of implementation and help us better understand how to write practical said deliver value for consumers. we have launched progress catalyst. we have saw out partnerships to help us engage consumers and help them address the challenges they face in managing the ways and means of their lives. along with these initiatives we are responding to an explicit challenge the congress lay down for us by attacking the unique problems that confront special populations of consumers. in addition to our work with consumers, we have targeted the financial exploitation of older americans. they are working to help seniors get sound information and advice about their retirement finances. we have also become fierce advocates for service members, veterans, and their families.

our dedicated team has identified and are resolving distinctive issues that affect our men and women in uniform. they have secured changes in market programs and empower service members to make better and more informed decisions on how to use their benefits under the gi bill for the 21st century. they have highlighted how consumer debt and adversely affect security clearances. these are the kinds of issues that the consumer bureau is already addressing on behalf of 330 million americans. of course there is much more to be done on each of these things, and we continue to make progress. today want to take a step back from our daily work to offer a vantage point on some of the broader praxis and dynamics that we have found across multiple consumer finance markets. these problems warrant everyone's attention as we concentrate on how to eliminate obstacles and open the pathway to opportunity for all americans. we want people to be able to

move forward as the best see fit, perhaps by owning a home, saving for retirement, or paying for further education. in particular i will describe four classes of problems the consumer bureau will continue to focus on as we pursue our mission. the first class of problems is the deceptive and misleading marketing of consumer financial products and services. as consumers pursue their goals in life, they learn the importance of making sound financial decisions. some research so they can better compare products and try to figure out what best suits their needs. others turn to providers that think they can trust. if the cost and risk or misrepresented, and consumers are no longer in control and they may be disabled from making critical choices. sometimes the problem consumers face is not a misrepresentation, but instead that critical product information is presented them in a manner they cannot readily understand and compare. such information may be buried

in pages of fine print are written in language that requires an advanced degree to decipher. various providers may describe the same fee very differently, which makes comparisons numbingly difficult. often consumers need to have key terms highlighted so the most important risk will stand out and can be more easily comprehended. the consumer has an important role to play as a trusted source that can provide clear, reliable information in a timely way. our efforts in mortgages, credit cards, and student loans are designed to streamline and inform the choices people make about borrowing money. we can also help consumers think about risk that may not be apparent on the face of products, such as the risk of a student failing to complete school or being unable to secure a job with sufficient income to repay student loan. we are developing specialized models such as paying for college and owning a home that will provide this kind of

broader perspective around the kinds of large life choices that many consumers may face in the course of a lifetime. our rebid of its rule is built on new disclosures to be provided to consumers before they pay any money it -- our remittance rule. we use modeled forms developed through extensive consumer testing. in the credit cards instead -- credit cards and student loan concept, there are new ways to provide clear information. by insisting on making the actual prices and risk clear to consumers, we are in a position to put people back in charge of the choices they make among their available options. there are times when making informed decisions is nearly impossible for consumers because the information provided is misleading or inaccurate or the information is deliberately withheld. these kinds of practices take many different forms, but what have in common is that they always harm consumers. in some instances, we can

address the issues by regulation. in other instances, more regulation may not be the answer because the law is already in place and is simply being disregarded. the new financial reform law makes it illegal to engage in unfair, deceptive practices in connection with consumer financial products or services and directs us to enforce this prohibition. more generally, we are charged with the duty of ensuring fair, transparent, and competitive markets. we recognize the key to protecting consumers a strong and vigilant enforcement. the possibilities here for injuring consumers are almost limitless. maybe a customer service representative provided misleading information. maybe consumers were told only about the benefits of a product and not about any of its limitations or risc features. may be important information was hidden or obscured, or maybe consumers are told that would have the chance to consider the matter further and later found

that were already signed up and charged for a service without ever giving their actual consent. as noted earlier, we work with fellow regulators to take several enforcement actions against credit card companies that can see project that misled consumers in these ways. in some economically bowman -- vulnerable consumers. wheat detail the problems with these practices, secured relief for those who were wrong, provided guidance, and signalled our concerns to other market to, to market participants -- other market participants. we took on mortgage released -- released scams. they pretend to seek relief for consumers but do little or nothing to help them. in each case, we have been addressing this by giving immediate court orders, freezing

assets. through this enforcement work, we are enabling consumers to make more informed and from that -- financially responsible decisions. the deceptive marketing plagues our markets. another problem is the existence of debt traps. they are products that trigger a cycle of debt that can disrupt a balance of people's financial lives. the telltale sign is that the success is based on a substantial percentage of users rolling over their debt -- they have to come back pay. after page. . -- pay period after pay period. the cycle of debt is essential to the business model. also, a short-term solution to emergency need, which can make a

tough situation even more difficult. for consumers in a financial jam with nowhere to turn, they -- they may think their only option is to use such a product. when the payment comes due, or when repayment is on -- automatically taken into their accounts, consumers may not have enough money to still meet their living expenses. they need to borrow again to avoid defaulting and make ends meet. for a considerable number of consumers, the skylab. depending on the precise terms, they can greatly hurt some consumers than help them. we have been analyzing these situations and determined how to apply our tools. there is an obvious demand which

can be helpful for consumers to be used responsibly. we want to make sure consumers can get the credit they need without jeopardize in or undermining their finances. debt traps should not be part of their financial futures. another problem consumers face on the pass with -- pathway to opportunity is important markets, such as debt collection. they are unable to choose their proviso -- provider. when people cannot vote with their feet, their clout is limited. even though these products and services can have a profound influence on their lives. when a market's central focus is on the nature of the relationship between two businesses, consumers can become collateral damage. take, for example, the market for debt collection. when a consumer does not pay back the debt, the creditor may decide to sell it to secure payment of what is still owed.

once this occurs, the business relationship has shifted. it is now between the debt collector and the creditor, not the consumer and the creditor. this could be led to -- this could lead to a mystery man of the consumers. creditors may have little reason to ensure debt collectors maintain and use accurate information. given this dysfunctional dynamic, there is little wonder debt collection is one of the most common sources of complete secure if the same -- sources of complaints. a third party is tasked with processing the payments made to administer the loan. the services hired by the mortgage holder, not by the bar.

the financial incentive governing the conduct and activity are once again outside the consumer's control. unpleasant surprises, constant runarounds, and mistreatment stemming from a lack of investment and customer service are examples of unacceptable practices harming consumers for almost a decade. the same product -- problematic structure -- many find themselves -- even when a modification would make sense for all concerns. we have seen the impact many have for homeowners. the credit reporting industry is another market in which consumers can become largely incidental between a business relationship between others.

a third party is interested in valuing their risks. the credit reporting firm has to balance it -- its clients' needs for information with its desire to keep costs low. things get resolved in the marketplace. what is quite clear is that consumers have no real say and their interests are an afterthought at best. inaccurate reports may be no more than a statistic. the damage done to their lives can be severe and lasting. without consumer choice, the key element of market discipline is lacking. the result is to permit the difference to the interest of consumers. at the consumer the or, they work to fix them. at the same time, we recognize

careful rules and effective oversight are needed for supervision and enforcement. iwe are strongly committed to shouldering our responsibility to protecting consumers in these markets. a final and persistent problem that can hijack consumers is the evil of the discrimination. for some people, the greatest challenges they face do not come from deceptive materials, but are rooted in something much more basic. statistics show very clearly communities of color were hit especially hard during the financial crisis. all americans saw drops in their household wealth, but african- americans and hispanics had steeper drops.

it has made it difficult or even impossible to achieve their financial goals. when consumers and lenders sit down to discuss goals, consumers often are unaware to discuss options. if a rate or price is quoted, they do not know if that accurately depicts in the market. interest rates vary based on the characteristics of the bar. lenders whose policy provide incentives have often resulted in african-american and hispanic people paying more for auto loans. we made it clear that, like the other banking regulators, we will pursue discrimination based on impact, as well as on intentional violation. from the perspective of the region of the consumer that have a discriminatory effect, every

consumer, regardless of race, gender, or other characteristics should have equal access to credit or an equal chance to pursue the pathway to opportunity. in our brief tenure of thus far, the consumer financial protection bureau has been active on many fronts to protect consumers. as we continue to build up the capacity of this new, young agency, those efforts will continue unabated. it is important for us to reflect what we have found -- what we find. so we can understand and address them more effectively. the pathway to opportunity for many consumers was badly damaged. as our economy and society recover more fully, we are committed to smoothing the path .way in a great many ways

can we are also committed to educating consumers and providing them with a trustworthy and helpful information they need to make responsible decisions they need. we stand, as always, steadfastly on the side of the american consumers. for hundreds of years, people have come to this country from all over the world in search of economic opportunity. they have endured great hardships to do so. the least we can offer is our best work to fulfill this promise for our generation as well. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. next, jose quinonez, the executive director in san francisco since 2011. e worked in washington d.c. at

the center for community change and on capitol hill. [applause] >> thank you. that was a reminder of all the jobs i had before. i had a great time in d.c.. on behalf of the consumer advisory board, i want to express our deepest gratitude to the director for his leadership in building. for many of us who work day in and day out helping low income families navigate, the cfpb is our partner, an ally bringing order and balance to the rules

governing the financial system, rules that are rebuilding confidence and trust and the well-being of consumers and the financial system overall. thank you for your dedicated work. next in the agenda, it will be my pleasure to moderate a conversation reflecting on what we just heard. we will stop this conversation and moderate the final segment of this session. let me turn it over to my cabinet members. we just heard a lot. we heard a lot so we wanted to start a discussion we just heard

his viewpoint and i take it as largely based on the realities of consumers who face deceptive practices. dead ends and discrimination in the financial marketplace. he mentioned how deliberate misinformation on the risks and costs are on financial products, and hurt consumers. we know that. he also mentioned the product has stepping traps. it greatly harms consumers. he also described how markets are stacked up against consumers. discrimination and how it has had a devastating impact, particularly on the african-

american and latino communities. for many of us, we can tell personal stories in all of these categories. i can list off a lot of people i know that have been affected in this race. i want to start with the overall question. does this analysis ring true to you. i know you just got off the plane, but i want to start with you. hopefully, you are still having california magic in the right now. i want to ask you, how does this analysis ring true to you and how have you seen this problem play out in your community? >> thank you. i am excited about the analysis because i think it is spot on. when we open up the doors of our organization, we started by seeing victims of planetary mortgage.

this was an opportunity to see people who went in getting one type of product and ended up getting something else. one -- 1 repeated example, the least of many horrendous examples of what happens. a focus on small, affordable credit, i want to pull that out as one of the important threads of the directors -- importance threats the directors listed. a senior took out a loan on her house. only $99,000, very little in california. she needed money to repair the roof and bury her son. that is why she took out a loan. she ended up with a loan for $160,000. she could not repaid that on her sixth in come. she no -- she knew she had

gotten. i do not want to go on excessively, but it highlights the importance captured in this client's story. the reality of what she experienced. access to well priced loans with clarity of terms appropriate for what the consumer is truly attempting to achieve, critically important for moving us forward. >> thank you. all want to take you, i will get you at the visit -- the beginning of the session. i want to ask you for your vantage point. you work on the policy area on this issue. the analysis on these, how does that ring true from your vantage point? >> thank you. sorry about my voice.

it doesn't ring true in illinois. we worked for over 10 years and have done a lot of research on the fallout. we have seen what the director described as a disproportionate impact on communities of color in both mortgage and the consumer lending issue. i want to mention one of the things the director talked about, the products structured to keep people in the debt cycle, like a loans. you have seen that in illinois. our state laws currently do not apply to the bank paid a loans. i think it is important the consumer bureau is trying to level that playing field.

i will give one example. one of your tv stations highlighted an example of a woman who took out a bank paid a loan and that was allowed to roll over and over for five years. that is ridiculous. that is not right resolving a short-term emergency problem. as it is trapping someone in a cycle of debt. those are types of things the agency could do, including limiting rolls, making sure his there is an ability to pay having long enough terms so you do not have to keep rea-hopping along. things like that are going to be very important. >> thank you.

i want to ask, as an academic thinking about these issues, i wanted to see, are there things we should be thinking about? are there things that were not necessarily included in the conversation? what other harmful practices and dynamics do you see? >> thank you. that was a trillion talk. -- brilliant talk. the people who know me know i do not just throw that out. the only thing i would say is two things. first, we are here for a reason. we are here because the market collapse and we cannot forget that. we cannot just go back to the same dialogue we had before the market collapsed as if the regulatory system just did not give those discussions correctly. we have to read from them.

when there is all this focus on information provision, it is critical. this is less talk academically and more with experiencing a hundreds of thousands of people. information is provided in a sales contest. it is really hard for the government to regulate. you can look at this disclosure. it works wonderful and tests in a room somewhere. and it is always provided in the context of a salesperson who has an incentive to get a result from that consumer. information regulation is a good but limited tool. cat would be what i would add. >> that is exactly right. you can challenge us and think about what the rules or solutions might be in thinking about them in the real context, not just the way we talk about

an. -- them. i want to dive in so we can get a better understanding of those issues. in philadelphia, do you talk and deal with a lot of folks in the consumer credit counseling world? how did this overall analysis ring true to you and your clients? >> i would say the one of around debt settlement. it may be because as we see clients that are offered and with credit card debt, not only potentially losing their home, but this credit card debt, the quick ads out there, they think all of us see them on tv, that promise quick results. if you did not get in overnight,

it will take a while to get out of it. consumers get caught in the quick fix. there are health-related issues also that we have seen with debt and carrying that burden. the advertisements and deception around how they can help the consumer needs to be addressed. is not an easy solution and it takes time. getting to the right resource that can help you is critical. >> i want to pivot the conversation at this point and go deeper into the issue of deceptive information. we heard about the pitfalls, the consumers' face. this is not news to us. we see it every day. i want to bring in stephen to this conversation about, you

work for a technology company. is there a role for technology? is there something we can be thinking about from that vantage point of technology and how should the cfpb help consumers with a new technology tools? >> i am from the bay area and we think technology will solve everything. having said that, i think the events that occurred in october was an example of the number of companies trying to address the issues richard cordray when into in his opening speech. as the role of the cfpb, there are a number of things that can be done. he bought -- two of them that jumped to mind, one is around data.

it never ceases to amaze me either lack of data or the timeliness of the data of terrible -- data available, and the knowledge that what you are trying to resolve requires accurate, timely data. i think about the national mortgage database. having a tool like that others can access and start developing the right products and services around this. the second area is a around getting things into the marketplace and allowing a start up company or established company to truly test and see not only the consumer response but what the impacts will be. i think about the test disclosure proposal, which is on the table right now. it is a great example to

recognize the apprentice's comments to be realistic about that environment and how current -- and how controlled it is a theory that will facilitate some of the information we will hopefully see out there. >> a great point. you think about technology at the beginning of it so we can start constructing a better solution. i wanted to ask -- asked jonathan. -- ask jonathan. as a researcher, an academic, -- you are not quasi, are you? [laughter] anyway. >> we are doers. [laughter] >> what would your advice be to

do in terms of research and information, market innovation. what sort of worked to you think should be thought about or done? >> i think it is critical to think about cfpb's efforts. let me give two and examplexamp. one thing that cuts across is the market for a device -- advice or lack thereof. the problems that concern consumers would be greatly mitigated if consumers had a trusted place they could go to get accurate information, or to get advice on what sort of broad

opt -- product. is right for them. the markets in the u.s. appear to be broken. that is most likely due to a combination of market failures and government failures. that is one crosscutting example. a more specific example in terms of the importance of market dynamics is to consider what is likely to happen popular if the stick it is turned off or the flow is constricted. what goes into that? what fills that, what arises, what new products a rise to meet

the demand that has always been there? i think the current state of research on what would fill that vacuum would be better or worse than what we have now, and i do not think there is a strong case for believing simply restricting the flow will make people better off. >> it is an interesting point. i want to bring in donna to the conversation, from the perspective of a financial service provider. how do you see financial providers can start the need for small loans, or provide better information so consumers can make informed decisions?

how does that look from your vantage point? >> speaking from my own institution, we are struggling with the complexity and the sheer volume of regulation and also trying to be conservative lenders. one thing i want to take off of what john was mentioning was, in terms of a place for trusted advice, we are working very hard on that front. in our community, there are very few trusted advisers. those and disease -- entities really need to be supported by the community. there is a real great need for that. some of the debt settlements are coming not from trusted

advisers. >> i know you helped develop some products are around this. i think, how did you think about being that trusted adviser and providing that better information to wal-mart clients? if you could walk us through your thinking when you guys were developing your particular plan. >> thank you. earlier, i ran financial services at wal-mart. i am sitting here as i am thinking about trying to convince, it addresses your comments. for us, it was about low cost. it was about how little we could charge, not how much we could charge. we also bought -- brought another thing, clarity.

we were very transparent -- this microphone is going on and off a bit. [indiscernible] is this better? we were very transparent, so clarity was important to us. we let you know how much things cost before you came up to the counter. it is also compatibility. are we getting the right product to the right customer at the right time? i just parted working on this. if we think about what we are trying to prevent, i am hoping the bureau and our efforts can help us figure out how to move from a lot of circumstances

where we are trying to fix things that are brokinen and how will we move forward to design better products and improve them so they are affordable, clear, and compatible with my needs and what i can afford. we will have to think of a fourth thing. i think there is a lot of opportunity to design better things. >> i wanted to ask, you deal with the problems and when people do not understand the information, they get themselves into trouble. from your vantage point and dealing with consumers, when you actually talk to them, what would be your advice in thinking about how to better construct information flow from the beginning? >> i get to see him at the back

end. this is a great " i live by. we are the last survivors. people in great distress either find religion or the courts. [laughter] that is okay. we need a road map. what we are really out lying is an ongoing mission. our ideal on both sides, because we are open to all and have a level playing field. the road maps, the clarity of language, and information flows to the ultimate consumers, it is ideal. i love the fact that at the beginning of the creation, there was the thought that information flow passivity in a certain way for a certain population. i love the fact there is one for

seniors because information is channeled differently for different priorities in different times. it must reflect our diversity and the delivery of regulation. we are here for the seniors. i see so many coming to the court room see how important that is. >> i wanted to move on to discussing the short term. short-term credit ends up being a death trap for a lot of consumers in a harmful way. that brings us the issue of loans and we have seen the effects. i want to bring in dawn to the conversation. there you are. you have done a lot of work in texas around this issue. my question to you is what role

do you see cfpb playing? how effective are our regulations on protecting consumers and is there a role cfpb can play? >> the states have the full two at their disposal in terms of being able to regulate and limit short-term lending, pay day, or auto titles. the issue is political weapon. to the degree there is political will, you can see good, effective regulation. there are tools such as one loan at a time, making sure there is a limit on interest rates. one of the new ones coming about is in terms of principle reduction. we are seeing a migration from the traditional pay day long.

[indiscernible] so, to the degree states can limit these loans to the terms they should be, whether or not that is 90 or 180 days, that is important. in texas, we have no limits, which gives you a sense of our political will. no limits on how much you can borrow, no limits on the fees that can be charged, or the number of low versus -- rollovers. last year, we saw 35,000 cars repossessed in texas. many of these consumers may take out a 1500 loan, pay $5,000 in

fees, never touched the principle and have their car repossessed. there are tools they can implement across the state, making sure there is visible pricing. one of the things we see is advertising and marketing around cost, convenience, location, etc.. one of the things we would like to see, making sure there is a meaningful ability to pay standard and make sure people who do pay on time get credible -- favorable report generated. there is a lot you can do to fill in the holes for states that do not have the political will. >> the staff are taking notes right now. thank you for that. i know you have been thinking a lot about short-term loans.

i want to see if you can weigh in on the issue against short- term credit, how it ends up being deathtraps for consumers. -- debt traps for consumers. >> i want to talk about a few other things. [laughter] not surprising. the issue of the role, states have a lot of authority. some do not. there are areas i know the cfpb is exploring to the extent of their reach to see if they can deal with those. it is the biggest problem. if you close off the stick it, and there is a way of reopening

it, nobody has jurisdiction over it reopening. i wanted to talk about the market's structure one. i was really pleased to hear that talked about because consumers get disadvantaged under situations in which people really are not focusing at all on the question of whether they are different -- disadvantaging consumers or advantaging them, and where some intervention that is almost an awareness intervention with the players can make a difference. to give one example, as businesses started moving to payroll cards, and many of us said, this is a terrific

opportunity for direct deposits, savings, all kinds of good things, we realized it was not happening. the reason is the move to pay role was a negotiation between people who never focused on the impact on the employee. the terms were being negotiated between the corporations and the payroll provider. the savings were going entirely to the employer. when awareness is raised of some of this stuff, the asian art department stepped in and you began to see at least a better negotiating position. that kind of awareness that we have structural business things in which the consumers are

harmed and it is so important. is a place where, in many cases, awareness to the corporations can make a huge difference. >> we have a lot to say about these issues. we have a couple more minutes. i wanted to address the issue of discrimination mentioned. it is something we have all been aware of. i wanted to ask gary. you work a lot with the latino community. i want to see from your vantage point, how have you seen the issue of discrimination play out in your community? >> thank you. a couple of thoughts. one of the ways we can serve consumers well is by providing them access and choice. one of the things we have seen

happen that has really been devastating is the complete elimination of the mortgage market. the market looks a lot like it did when i first got into the market space back in the mid 1980's and. you had a paper lenders and a huge cavern and day -- and hard money and letters -- money lenders. that is something we have to keep an eye on. with discrimination, i will focus on one element, language. we have growing populations throughout the country. especially california. a large segment of the population is not english- dominant. that is a big market and people want to get to it. as an advocate for hispanic home buyers, i would like to see the market served well. there is a lack of clarity as to what is appropriate in terms of

surfing non-tingling -- english- speaking consumers. you market to them in a language, higher sales people who can speak that language, servicing is not in the language. the industry would benefit by some guidance in that regard. i think it needs to come at the federal level. if it comes at the state level, it will be fragmented and more expensive. those are a couple thoughts. >> i appreciate that. i want to bring in bill, before we talk about final thoughts. we will continue to talk about this. from your work, how do you see the discrimination and how have you addressed it from your vantage point. >> it is interesting.

we have been focusing on the facts that this is 50 years after some pretty turbulent times in this country. in mississippi, -- the march in washington occurred here. the results of practices we are facing with a lot of people, the specifically people of color, that rings true with the abuses around financial practices distaste -- these days. it is unfortunately affecting people of color. across the south, and there are laws and protections, or lack of protections. just like in the 1960's, the federal government has a critical role to add stability to peoples' lives. we see people coming in who have 10 petty loans.

you would not get eight, nine, 10 loans. that kind of clarity is absolutely critical. there are so many different lenders reporting. we can really get a sense of what people are experiencing. we we know there are sins of omission. people are being abused. there needs to be accountability. our role is you need the position to play. >> thank you. i want to ask for final thoughts. we will be talking about all those issues. anything from your vantage point on how specifically we should think about it?

>> yes. i work a lot on student loan issues. a lot of what the director talked about it all the points on servicing, debt collection, information, giving students what they need up front. there is a variety of timing, when we will meet all of these we will be hitting, the bar worse. we are particularly looking at, we are seeing on one side, having debt collectors be unwilling to work with far worse who cannot afford the payments being demanded of them. we are seeing very poor servicing. all of these things are things i am working on. >> great. do you have any quick, final thoughts? >> yes. where are the banks in all of this.

? the banks were not doing these kinds of loans. i think we need to be very focused on what we are asking our agencies. we have a division that focuses. i know it can be done. i know that for a fact. any bank that says, we cannot do this, i do not think you want to do this. [laughter] >> i want to add a deliberate design. it is a matter of mistake. the consumers make mistakes. it is not about to change. we want consumers to have adequate incentives to limit their mistakes. there are also some financial

products designed to take advantage of mistakes consumers predictably make. one that comes to mind is overdraft. consumers get benefits from overdraft, but it is not clear those benefits are outweighed by the cost. the pricing of overdraft is a market where it is not clear, because sumer's seem to shop for it because they do not expect to be overdrawing their accounts. we can still have products where it is designed to take advantage of consumer mistakes. >> real quick. i would be remiss if i did not talk about the credit industry because we do a lot around financial institution.

if you are caught in the middle, where you have a mistake and you cannot get it fixed because of the way the system works, all the financial education in the world will not be. >> a quick comment and i want to see if you can say a word or two about the serviceman. >> one of the great strengths of the cfpb is that it is consumer- centric rather than profit or regulation focused. if we think about it that way, from the standpoint of the customers, the main strained coffers -- mainstream customers just need better information. technology is a huge part of the solution. we can all the sudden get better information to people in a better way, faster and simpler. for vulnerable segments of the

marketplace, we have to focus on what makes them vulnerable. are they desperate? are they being preyed upon? really clear focus upon those situations and how to present them is one of the key things. >> if you can give us a word or two about the agenda? >> kudos for all the work you have done so far. your impact into raising these issues and making the leadership understand in this part of their responsibility to see these things happen. i will also say we have 3 million people in uniform and 20 million veterans. that is a well-defined group of consumers. consume, they do. one area i would be looking at

is not just with the marketplace may not treat the service member's well, but also institutions within our own government. failing to pay disability after six months, service members are left without in, and that same agency closes on the very loan citizens feelhem, the obligation to those individuals have not been met. i applaud her for what her office does. >> i want to thank you all for providing wonderful comments. this is an example of the engaged conversation we want to have with our friends. and for us to provide that advice and counsel. and really realize the mission of the cfpb, protecting the

simmers in the -- the consumers in the marketplace. we will be closed off with the next segment. thank you. >> thank you. you did a great job and you let interesting conversation. it is now time to hear from audience participants that are here today. we have community leaders, advocates, as well as trade representatives. maybe a few consumers. the open mike portion of today's public meeting is really an opportunity to hear from the audience, to hear your perspective, your comments, on the discussion, and it really is an opportunity to for you to tell us what you think about what you just heard. there are a few folks who signed up to do that. i apologize if i mispronounced your name. the first person, tom.

someone will bring you a microphone. >> hello. while i sat here and listened to all the comments, i never heard the word, arbitration. i am a consumer lawyer in virginia. since 1996, i practiced and exclusively in consumer law, federal court, state court, and taking cases to arbitration. i urge the consumer advisory board to oppose forced arbitration in consumer contracts. forced arbitration is a mandatory binding arbitration cost that is not negotiated with the consumer. all of that information that lets the consumer choose if something is not negotiated with the consumer, the consumer has no choice.

forced arbitration is a non negotiated clause with the consumer. the consumer has no control over it. a forced arbitration clause is an uninformed waiver of the fundamental right to access the american justice system. as stated over a century ago, i am quoting the united states supreme court, the right to sue and defend is the alternative of force. this is what i live on a daily basis when i have to explain to my clients that they are not allowed to take their dispute, whether they are being abused by a corporation, into court. the right to sue and defend is the alternative of force. i have to explain to my clients why they are not allowed to access the justice system, why they should not be mad about it,

and why they should believe in a civil dispute resolution process, because our justice system has recognized -- is recognized as the alternative of force. we should not be tricking people out of that alternative. in an organized society, it is the right conservative of all of the rights and lies at the foundation of orderly government, when people believe there is a form they can use to solve their disputes. they believe in an order in the -- orderly government. a jurist said this on january 30 of this year -- i think the federal arbitration act is a wonderful thing and arbitration has many advantages, but the downside is that you just cannot jam someone and force someone

into arbitration when they have not agreed to it. that becomes naked coercion, independent of any basis in law. >> thank you. phil? >> hello. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am a consumer lawyer. the fifth thing you should add to your panel is dispute resolution. i assume tom and i are in agreement. rights without remedies are no rights at all. you can have all the regulations, all the various rules with respect to governing

financial services contract, but individuals say, how can i have a dispute with the company, and there is an arbitration provision that bans me from taking the dispute resolution to court and they are on their own, there is no right for that individual law. against a giant corporation. even if you had the opportunity to go to an arbitration forum, you are then faced with provisions that require you to arbitrate your claws, your dispute, in places like utah, or if you want to bring a dispute, you have to take thousands of dollars of a fee. it is incredibly important that if you will be pursuing these rules, you pursue rules that allow individual consumers to amendment.he we have a robust debate in our

courts and society about the bill of rights, the second amendment in particular. everyone forgets about the seventh amendment, the right to trial by jury for any dispute rising in common law t, and yet we have no rights right now because the provision is preventing us from pursuing. this is an important thing you need to focus on. >> thank you. steven? >> i will pass thanks to cfpb far.he great job so i did have a concern and others have made. the impact of closing this figure to people of very limited means. i think that has been commented on. thank you again. >> thank you.

jeremy? >> thank you. i am the director of government affairs. a national organization [indiscernible] i want to applaud an incredible group of folks. one of the groups we work with is a network of advocates across the country in almost every state that our practitioners to see they do not fault trap to a lot of the things we are talking about today. i want to emphasize the importance of reaching out to importance of reaching out to the folks on the